| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"El Diablo con Queso" |
| Date: |
20 Jun 2007 10:25:19 AM |
| Object: |
Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
theBZA wrote:
"Edward M. Kennedy" <doidy@wox.com> wrote in
news:f59i1r$vcg$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote
Killing gazillions of bacteria caused them to evolve drug
resistance. HTH.
That is an incorrect statement.
That is an unsupported assertion.
No - it's almost a tautology. The bacteria that get killed, aren't
by definition drug resistant and are thus unable to further the
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this as if
you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are already
resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are so many
different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that something that
works on one will not work on another.
Now lets get back to an organism developing resistance, lets get back to
it evolving to develop the resistance. BZA made an incorrect assertion
but we do see evolution right before us all the time. Hell in the womb
we have a tail for a short time... that says something to me
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5759/374
"We isolated a morphologically diverse collection of spore-forming
bacteria from soil samples originating from diverse locations (urban,
agricultural, and forest).
"Without exception, every strain in the library was found to be multi-
drug resistant to seven or eight antibiotics on average, with two
strains being resistant to 15 of 21 drugs (Fig. 1B). Reproducible
resistance to most of the antibiotics, regardless of origin, was
observed, and almost 200 different resistance profiles were seen (Fig.
1, A and C), exemplifying the immense genetic and phenotypic diversity
of the collection of bacteria.
"Several antibiotics, including the synthetic dihydrofolate reductase
(DHFR) inhibitor trimethoprim and the new lipopeptide daptomycin, were
almost universally ineffective against the library.
"Despite a lack of known prior exposure to fluoroquinolones or
bacterially synthesized analogs, 11% of strains demonstrated intrinsic
resistance to ciprofloxacin (Fig. 1C, MICs of 6 to 128 µg/ml). Of the 52
resistant strains, none eliminated fluoroquinolone antibacterial
activity, indicating that enzymatic inactivation was unlikely (Table 1).
To investigate the possibility of QRDR mutation, this region was cloned
and sequenced from 38 resistant isolates (Fig. 2). Eleven different
amino acid substitutions were identified at nine QRDR locations in 24%
of strains sequenced. These included locations commonly associated with
clinical ciprofloxacin resistance (such as Ser83 and Asp87, using the
Escherichia coli numbering system), as well as novel sites within the
QRDR (such as Met100 and Ser110). Among these strains, the isolate with
the highest MIC displayed a mutation at a novel location (Ser110). The
high incidence of mutations in the absence of obvious environmental
selective pressures is consistent with previous studies that found
natural sequence variation within this domain in soil bacteria (19).
Knowledge of such natural variations could complement studies on
clinical isolates to guide the rational development of next-generation
fluoroquinolones that will be active against resistant strains."
The slower gazelles don't pass on their genes either, yet it
is lions killing gazelles that selects for faster gazelles.
If the faster gazelles don't reproduce, they pass on nothing. If they do
reproduce, the rate at which they reproduce (generations per unit time)
will indicate the rate at which they can propagate new traits. Is that
really so difficult for you to understand?
At any rate, the point here is that the bacteria are evolving
when they otherwise would not have (i.e. quicker) while their
population is going down (because we're killing them faster).
Their population is not going down. Only the population of sensitive
bacteria goes down. The resistant bacteria expand. I mean really, this
is 5th grade biology.
Thus the idiotic assertion that population growth rates are a
measure of the rate of evolution is disproven.
The only thing proven is your utter ignorance.
.
|
|
| User: "theBZA" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 10:52:37 AM |
|
|
El Diablo con Queso <ha@nospam.net> wrote in
news:137ihmutkc8efff@news.supernews.com:
theBZA wrote:
"Edward M. Kennedy" <doidy@wox.com> wrote in
news:f59i1r$vcg$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote
Killing gazillions of bacteria caused them to evolve drug
resistance. HTH.
That is an incorrect statement.
That is an unsupported assertion.
No - it's almost a tautology. The bacteria that get killed, aren't
by definition drug resistant and are thus unable to further the
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this as
if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are already
resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are so
many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that something
that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article. They mention the DHFR inhibitor not
affected strains that lack DHFR (I did not quote that part so that's why
you didn't see it). However, if a 4th gen fluoroquinolone is totally
ineffective against a majority of "wild-type" bacteria, that is not a
case of simply mismatching drug to target.
Now lets get back to an organism developing resistance, lets get back
to it evolving to develop the resistance. BZA made an incorrect
assertion but we do see evolution right before us all the time. Hell
I did not make an incorrect assertion. And I will point out that despite
his screaming "you're wrong" a thousand times, Tedward has yet to
adequately explain what would make my assertion incorrect - much less
actually cite a source. In contrast, when he challenged me to cite
another scientist that said the same thing I said, I was able to do so.
The fact that it was a 5th grade biology primer, and the fact that he
could not understand it, says a lot about him.
in the womb we have a tail for a short time... that says something to
me
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." We also have gills for awhile in
utero. There are several theories that try to explain this. A widely
accepted theory is that we express "obsolete" genes during ontogeny. Why
would we have "obsolete" genes that encode gills or tails? I know. It's
the Creator testing our faith. (Now *there* is an incorrect assertion).
--
Crippled but free
I was blind all the time
I was learning to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward M. Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
21 Jun 2007 04:48:57 PM |
|
|
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this as
if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are already
resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are so
many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that something
that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
They mention the DHFR inhibitor not
affected strains that lack DHFR (I did not quote that part so that's why
you didn't see it). However, if a 4th gen fluoroquinolone is totally
ineffective against a majority of "wild-type" bacteria, that is not a
case of simply mismatching drug to target.
Now lets get back to an organism developing resistance, lets get back
to it evolving to develop the resistance. BZA made an incorrect
assertion but we do see evolution right before us all the time. Hell
I did not make an incorrect assertion. And I will point out that despite
his screaming "you're wrong" a thousand times, Tedward has yet to
adequately explain what would make my assertion incorrect - much less
actually cite a source.
You have it exactly backwards -- I've demonstrated declining
populations can evolve more quickly.
In contrast, when he challenged me to cite
another scientist that said the same thing I said, I was able to do so.
The fact that it was a 5th grade biology primer, and the fact that he
could not understand it, says a lot about him.
You never cited anything close to your dumbass assertion, and
citing a 5th grad biology primer is even dumber than your dumbass
assertion.
--Tedward
.
|
|
|
| User: "theBZA" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
21 Jun 2007 08:03:34 PM |
|
|
"Edward M. Kennedy" <doidy@wox.com> wrote in
news:f5eroc$blq$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this
as if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are
already resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been
exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the
reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are so
many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that
something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
Good lord. I mean really. This is the last attempt I will make. The
bacteria WERE NOT EXPOSED TO THE DRUGS. Is that clear enough to you?
They developed resistance to drugs they had never been exposed to. And
now you have proven yourself to be the single most ignorant person on
this subject.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
An "extremely tiny chance" that 480 different bacteria would develope
resistance to 21 different drugs they had never been exposed to. Right.
They mention the DHFR inhibitor not
affected strains that lack DHFR (I did not quote that part so that's
why you didn't see it). However, if a 4th gen fluoroquinolone is
totally ineffective against a majority of "wild-type" bacteria, that
is not a case of simply mismatching drug to target.
Now lets get back to an organism developing resistance, lets get
back to it evolving to develop the resistance. BZA made an
incorrect assertion but we do see evolution right before us all the
time. Hell
I did not make an incorrect assertion. And I will point out that
despite his screaming "you're wrong" a thousand times, Tedward has
yet to adequately explain what would make my assertion incorrect -
much less actually cite a source.
You have it exactly backwards -- I've demonstrated declining
populations can evolve more quickly.
You made that claim but you demonstrated nothing. I, OTOH, provided a
cite that substantiated my original claim, another cite that explained
the concept and a third cite that disproved your ludicrous claim that
bacteria cannot develope resistance unless they are killed by the drug
first.
In contrast, when he challenged me to cite
another scientist that said the same thing I said, I was able to do
so. The fact that it was a 5th grade biology primer, and the fact
that he could not understand it, says a lot about him.
You never cited anything close to your dumbass assertion, and
citing a 5th grad biology primer is even dumber than your dumbass
assertion.
Actually, it was nearly an exact quote
*PLONK*
--
If I were a cactus, I wouldn't need so much water
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward M. Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
21 Jun 2007 08:43:33 PM |
|
|
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this
as if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are
already resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been
exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the
reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are so
many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that
something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
Good lord. I mean really. This is the last attempt I will make. The
bacteria WERE NOT EXPOSED TO THE DRUGS.
THE ONES WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WERE.
Is that clear enough to you?
They developed resistance to drugs they had never been exposed to. And
now you have proven yourself to be the single most ignorant person on
this subject.
You are not real honest. From the article:
"Soil-dwelling bacteria produce and encounter a myriad of antibiotics,
evolving corresponding sensing and evading strategies. They are a reservoir
of resistance determinants that can be mobilized into the microbial community.
Study of this reservoir could provide an early warning system for future
clinically relevant antibiotic resistance mechanisms."
It's not a fucking surprise they might get lucky and be resistant to an
antibiotic they hadn't been exposed to.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
An "extremely tiny chance" that 480 different bacteria would develope
resistance to 21 different drugs they had never been exposed to. Right.
Yeah, they were all from one genus, a point you neglected to mention.
In fact you are outright lying -- they were all resistant to only one
drug ,daptomycin, a naturally occuring substance. Only 5 were resistant
to vancomycin.
So there's a single genus that is immune to a bunch of antibiotics. Big
fucking deal. That has nothing to do with discussion of ones that aren't.
They mention the DHFR inhibitor not
affected strains that lack DHFR (I did not quote that part so that's
why you didn't see it). However, if a 4th gen fluoroquinolone is
totally ineffective against a majority of "wild-type" bacteria, that
is not a case of simply mismatching drug to target.
Now lets get back to an organism developing resistance, lets get
back to it evolving to develop the resistance. BZA made an
incorrect assertion but we do see evolution right before us all the
time. Hell
I did not make an incorrect assertion. And I will point out that
despite his screaming "you're wrong" a thousand times, Tedward has
yet to adequately explain what would make my assertion incorrect -
much less actually cite a source.
You have it exactly backwards -- I've demonstrated declining
populations can evolve more quickly.
You made that claim but you demonstrated nothing. I, OTOH, provided a
cite that substantiated my original claim, another cite that explained
the concept and a third cite that disproved your ludicrous claim that
bacteria cannot develope resistance unless they are killed by the drug
first.
"Being killed". For the bacteria in question, that was a true statement.
In contrast, when he challenged me to cite
another scientist that said the same thing I said, I was able to do
so. The fact that it was a 5th grade biology primer, and the fact
that he could not understand it, says a lot about him.
You never cited anything close to your dumbass assertion, and
citing a 5th grad biology primer is even dumber than your dumbass
assertion.
Actually, it was nearly an exact quote
So the liar says.
*PLONK*
Oh good, he's done with his temper tantrum.
--Tedward
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
21 Jun 2007 05:58:49 PM |
|
|
In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this as
if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are already
resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are so
many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that something
that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of _populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A population can
evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like a particular resistance.
This requires that some number of individuals already have evolved the
particular trait that grants antibiotic resistance _before exposure_. The
population changes because those individuals are more likely (possibly
uniquely likely) to survive and reproduce.
On the other hand, in 15 years of reading on evolution research, I've never
run into the statement that increasing population is a proxy of evolution.
I'm not even sure what that means.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Barry Goldwater: "Every good Christian should line up
\ and kick Jerry Falwell's *****."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward M. Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
21 Jun 2007 08:19:51 PM |
|
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this as
if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are already
resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are so
many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that something
that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of _populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_.
I was talking about killing populations of bacteria in humans, and how
that led to resistance, or the evolution of the the total population.
Some overly helpful beavers pointed out it is the surviving individuals
who pass on the traits (liek dur, that's why not finishing off the dose
is a bad idea).
A population can
evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like a particular resistance.
This requires that some number of individuals already have evolved the
particular trait that grants antibiotic resistance _before exposure_.
Not necessarily. Bacteria swap genetic information with other species.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_5_159/ai_71352464
Also, it isn't necessarily a singe gene involved in granting resistance,
and using not enough antibiotics as a selection mechanism can increase
the frequency of existing genes required for significan resistance (the
bacteria often do not become *completely* resistant). My understanding
is that resistance often builds gradually. Last but not least, a mutation
causing resistance could occur, one that wouldn't necessarily get passed
on to the general population if it weren't for the fact that you killed
most of it off.
And we haven't even menioned gene *expression*. A species could have
the gene for resistance, but few individuals have DNA that express that
gene enough to grant *any* resistance, and none express it well enough
to live. By easing up on your does, you can get the same effect as
resistance granted by several genes. The germs with the most expression
survive.
The
population changes because those individuals are more likely (possibly
uniquely likely) to survive and reproduce.
What you don't want is to do is let germs survive who have any resistance
for whatever reason.
On the other hand, in 15 years of reading on evolution research, I've never
run into the statement that increasing population is a proxy of evolution.
I'm not even sure what that means.
To be fair:
"I have said over and over that the rate of population growth is a measure
of the rate of evolution."
I've read Discover and Science News since the early nineties, and I have
never read anything like that. That's why I asked for a cite. If it is
true, I got some learnin' to do, but it isn't, so I don't.
--Tedward
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TimV" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
21 Jun 2007 11:54:03 PM |
|
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:137m0l9j2jgsse6@corp.supernews.com...
In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com> sanoi,
hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this as
if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are already
resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are so
many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that something
that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of
_populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A population can
evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like a particular resistance.
This requires that some number of individuals already have evolved the
particular trait that grants antibiotic resistance _before exposure_.
This is not necessarily the case. First, selective pressures in bacteria
usually increase their rate of mutations. Secondly, it increases the
likelihood that a chance occurance of horizontal gene transfer into an
individual bacterium will actually provide a selective advantage and become
part of the population rather than the far more likely event that said
bacteria would have perished without the pressure.
The
population changes because those individuals are more likely (possibly
uniquely likely) to survive and reproduce.
On the other hand, in 15 years of reading on evolution research, I've
never
run into the statement that increasing population is a proxy of evolution.
I'm not even sure what that means.
It's bad 7th grade science.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "theBZA" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 09:02:22 AM |
|
|
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:yBIei.5882$c06.3237@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:137m0l9j2jgsse6@corp.supernews.com...
In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this
as if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are
already resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been
exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the
reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are
so many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that
something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of
_populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A
population can evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like a
particular resistance. This requires that some number of individuals
already have evolved the particular trait that grants antibiotic
resistance _before exposure_.
This is not necessarily the case. First, selective pressures in
bacteria usually increase their rate of mutations. Secondly, it
False. Selective pressures increase the rate of selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent on
the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to environmental
mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to mutagens *is* a
form of selective pressure but that's stretching it.
increases the likelihood that a chance occurance of horizontal gene
transfer into an individual bacterium will actually provide a
selective advantage and become part of the population rather than the
far more likely event that said bacteria would have perished without
the pressure.
The
population changes because those individuals are more likely
(possibly uniquely likely) to survive and reproduce.
On the other hand, in 15 years of reading on evolution research, I've
never
run into the statement that increasing population is a proxy of
evolution. I'm not even sure what that means.
It's bad 7th grade science.
Another false statement.
--
Crippled but free
I was blind all the time
I was learning to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimV" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 09:09:49 AM |
|
|
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns995766E79D90Bdewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:yBIei.5882$c06.3237@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:137m0l9j2jgsse6@corp.supernews.com...
In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this
as if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are
already resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been
exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the
reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are
so many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that
something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of
_populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A
population can evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like a
particular resistance. This requires that some number of individuals
already have evolved the particular trait that grants antibiotic
resistance _before exposure_.
This is not necessarily the case. First, selective pressures in
bacteria usually increase their rate of mutations. Secondly, it
False. Selective pressures increase the rate of selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent on
the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to environmental
mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to mutagens *is* a
form of selective pressure but that's stretching it.
Replication error rates increase in bacteria under stress. Stress also makes
it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events and induces
competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the likelihood of
horizontal gene transfer.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward M. Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 04:57:35 PM |
|
|
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like this
as if you knew something. How can you explain the bacteria are
already resistant to new antibiotics that they have never been
exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the
reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there are
so many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms that
something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the drugs.
Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed resistance to
the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's the moronic
conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny chance
a few would have devoloped resistance without our exposuring them
to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible genius obviously, care
to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds are? Or you can keep on
weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of
_populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A
population can evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like a
particular resistance. This requires that some number of individuals
already have evolved the particular trait that grants antibiotic
resistance _before exposure_.
This is not necessarily the case. First, selective pressures in
bacteria usually increase their rate of mutations. Secondly, it
False. Selective pressures increase the rate of selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent on
the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to environmental
mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to mutagens *is* a
form of selective pressure but that's stretching it.
Replication error rates increase in bacteria under stress. Stress also makes
it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events and induces
competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the likelihood of
horizontal gene transfer.
Did you notice how he snipped this part of your original post? The part
that started this thread (he's defending his ego, not the statement):
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:137m0l9j2jgsse6@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
On the other hand, in 15 years of reading on evolution research, I've
never
run into the statement that increasing population is a proxy of evolution.
I'm not even sure what that means.
It's bad 7th grade science.
T
--
The post where he cited a 5th grade biology book as an authority was
pretty rsfcking funny.
--Tedward
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "theBZA" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 10:21:44 AM |
|
|
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:NKQei.34277$Um6.3138@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns995766E79D90Bdewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:yBIei.5882$c06.3237@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:137m0l9j2jgsse6@corp.supernews.com...
In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the
drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like
this as if you knew something. How can you explain the
bacteria are already resistant to new antibiotics that they
have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the
reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there
are so many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms
that something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the
drugs. Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed
resistance to the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's
the moronic conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny
chance a few would have devoloped resistance without our
exposuring them to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible
genius obviously, care to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds
are? Or you can keep on weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of
_populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A
population can evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like a
particular resistance. This requires that some number of
individuals already have evolved the particular trait that grants
antibiotic resistance _before exposure_.
This is not necessarily the case. First, selective pressures in
bacteria usually increase their rate of mutations. Secondly, it
False. Selective pressures increase the rate of selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent on
the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to environmental
mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to mutagens *is* a
form of selective pressure but that's stretching it.
Replication error rates increase in bacteria under stress. Stress also
makes it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events and
induces competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the
likelihood of horizontal gene transfer.
Much depends on what you mean by "stress". If you mean bacteria growing
in an uncomfortably hot or acidic environment, then yes, replication
error rates can increase due to the enzyme functioning under sub-optimal
conditions. If you mean a stress such as antibiotic selection, then it
is highly unlikely that mutation rates will increase, at least on the
genome level. Many antibiotics target the ribosome so there are
sometimes translational errors that result but these are non-heritable.
Recombination in bacteria is generally the result of DNA damage. This
falls into the environmental mutagen category I mentioned earlier.
Exposure to mutagens can be considered a selective pressure as I said.
Recombination intermediates are resolved by DNA polymerase so again your
"mutation rate" is still dependent on DNAP-based errors.
--
Crippled but free
I was blind all the time
I was learning to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimV" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 10:37:20 AM |
|
|
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9957745C983D8dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:NKQei.34277$Um6.3138@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns995766E79D90Bdewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:yBIei.5882$c06.3237@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:137m0l9j2jgsse6@corp.supernews.com...
In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with drugs,
the bacteria would not have developed resistance to the
drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like
this as if you knew something. How can you explain the
bacteria are already resistant to new antibiotics that they
have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that the
reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there
are so many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms
that something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the
drugs. Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed
resistance to the drugs without exposure to them? Because that's
the moronic conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny
chance a few would have devoloped resistance without our
exposuring them to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible
genius obviously, care to tell us exactly how miniscule those odds
are? Or you can keep on weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of
_populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A
population can evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like a
particular resistance. This requires that some number of
individuals already have evolved the particular trait that grants
antibiotic resistance _before exposure_.
This is not necessarily the case. First, selective pressures in
bacteria usually increase their rate of mutations. Secondly, it
False. Selective pressures increase the rate of selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent on
the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to environmental
mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to mutagens *is* a
form of selective pressure but that's stretching it.
Replication error rates increase in bacteria under stress. Stress also
makes it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events and
induces competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the
likelihood of horizontal gene transfer.
Much depends on what you mean by "stress". If you mean bacteria growing
in an uncomfortably hot or acidic environment, then yes, replication
error rates can increase due to the enzyme functioning under sub-optimal
conditions. If you mean a stress such as antibiotic selection, then it
is highly unlikely that mutation rates will increase, at least on the
genome level. Many antibiotics target the ribosome so there are
sometimes translational errors that result but these are non-heritable.
Recombination in bacteria is generally the result of DNA damage. This
falls into the environmental mutagen category I mentioned earlier.
Exposure to mutagens can be considered a selective pressure as I said.
Recombination intermediates are resolved by DNA polymerase so again your
"mutation rate" is still dependent on DNAP-based errors.
I can tell that you've had some advanced classes in biology. That's great.
However, bacterial stress responses are what I research for a living. My PhD
work was in this exact subject. Under stressful conditions, bacteria produce
subunits that increase the replication error rates. They also downregulate
repair mechanisms and upregulate DNA uptake mechanisms. Recombination is not
induced only by DNA damage, nor is DNA damage result only from mutagens. In
fact, many antibiotics, particularly the gyrase inhibitors, actually will
increase damage events.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "theBZA" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 11:00:01 AM |
|
|
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:Q0Sei.21371$C96.19417@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9957745C983D8dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:NKQei.34277$Um6.3138@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns995766E79D90Bdewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:yBIei.5882$c06.3237@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:137m0l9j2jgsse6@corp.supernews.com...
In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with
drugs, the bacteria would not have developed resistance to
the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like
this as if you knew something. How can you explain the
bacteria are already resistant to new antibiotics that they
have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that
the reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there
are so many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms
that something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the
drugs. Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed
resistance to the drugs without exposure to them? Because
that's the moronic conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny
chance a few would have devoloped resistance without our
exposuring them to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible
genius obviously, care to tell us exactly how miniscule those
odds are? Or you can keep on weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of
_populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A
population can evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like
a particular resistance. This requires that some number of
individuals already have evolved the particular trait that grants
antibiotic resistance _before exposure_.
This is not necessarily the case. First, selective pressures in
bacteria usually increase their rate of mutations. Secondly, it
False. Selective pressures increase the rate of selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent
on the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to
environmental mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to
mutagens *is* a form of selective pressure but that's stretching
it.
Replication error rates increase in bacteria under stress. Stress
also makes it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events
and induces competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the
likelihood of horizontal gene transfer.
Much depends on what you mean by "stress". If you mean bacteria
growing in an uncomfortably hot or acidic environment, then yes,
replication error rates can increase due to the enzyme functioning
under sub-optimal conditions. If you mean a stress such as antibiotic
selection, then it is highly unlikely that mutation rates will
increase, at least on the genome level. Many antibiotics target the
ribosome so there are sometimes translational errors that result but
these are non-heritable.
Recombination in bacteria is generally the result of DNA damage. This
falls into the environmental mutagen category I mentioned earlier.
Exposure to mutagens can be considered a selective pressure as I
said. Recombination intermediates are resolved by DNA polymerase so
again your "mutation rate" is still dependent on DNAP-based errors.
I can tell that you've had some advanced classes in biology. That's
Yeah. Some. LOL.
great. However, bacterial stress responses are what I research for a
living. My PhD work was in this exact subject. Under stressful
conditions, bacteria produce subunits that increase the replication
error rates.
Again, this would depend on the stress. I believe I mentioned heat above
which certainly induces expression sigma32.
They also downregulate repair mechanisms and upregulate
DNA uptake mechanisms.
Again, this would depend on the stress. If you want to consider an
environmental mutagen as a stress (which I infer from your previous
posts) then you have to acknowledge that many of these stresses will
*UPREGULATE* recombination. DNA uptake is transmission, which is
certainly critical for propagation of mutations.
Recombination is not induced only by DNA
damage, nor is DNA damage result only from mutagens. In fact, many
Hence my use of the word "generally"
antibiotics, particularly the gyrase inhibitors, actually will
increase damage events.
Indeed. And repair events are directed at maintaining genome integrity.
Since we're throwing around our credentials I'll tell you that my
undergrad thesis (UCSD) was in DNA damage responses in bacteria (I was a
microbiology major), my PhD (UCLA) was in transcription regulation
although I did my thesis work with Jay Gralla (famous for studying
alternate sigma factors). My post-doc was in DNA repair in eukaryotes
and I currently am the director of molecular genetics at a small pharma
where we use HR to create gene conversions in antibiotic BEAs with the
aim of creating *natural* product antimicrobials that evade resistance.
I've had 2 NIH fellowships (pre-doc and post-doc) and I received 5
academic awards while at UCLA include the Cram fellowship. I think that
covers all the bases.
--
Crippled but free
I was blind all the time
I was learning to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimV" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 11:27:15 AM |
|
|
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99577ADA8C103dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:Q0Sei.21371$C96.19417@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9957745C983D8dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:NKQei.34277$Um6.3138@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns995766E79D90Bdewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:yBIei.5882$c06.3237@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:137m0l9j2jgsse6@corp.supernews.com...
In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote
No *****. But if you hadn't been killing bacteria with
drugs, the bacteria would not have developed resistance to
the drugs.
You are so incredibly ignorant yet you spew forth ***** like
this as if you knew something. How can you explain the
bacteria are already resistant to new antibiotics that they
have never been exposed to?
Ummm not every living organism on earth is affected by every
compound?
You talk about 5th grade biology but you do realize that
the reason
there are so many different drugs out there is because there
are so many different mechanisms at work inside of organisms
that something that works on one will not work on another.
This is addressed in the article.
So what. The bacteria we were talking were resistant to the
drugs. Are you arguing the bacteria would have developed
resistance to the drugs without exposure to them? Because
that's the moronic conclusion you seem to be implying.
If you want to be fuckwit stickler, there's an extremely tiny
chance a few would have devoloped resistance without our
exposuring them to antibiotics. Since you are an incredible
genius obviously, care to tell us exactly how miniscule those
odds are? Or you can keep on weasling, dude.
This is somewhat unclear--you are talking about the evolution of
_populations_,
and y'all are talking about the deaths of _individuals_. A
population can evolve to widely posess some characteristic, like
a particular resistance. This requires that some number of
individuals already have evolved the particular trait that grants
antibiotic resistance _before exposure_.
This is not necessarily the case. First, selective pressures in
bacteria usually increase their rate of mutations. Secondly, it
False. Selective pressures increase the rate of selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent
on the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to
environmental mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to
mutagens *is* a form of selective pressure but that's stretching
it.
Replication error rates increase in bacteria under stress. Stress
also makes it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events
and induces competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the
likelihood of horizontal gene transfer.
Much depends on what you mean by "stress". If you mean bacteria
growing in an uncomfortably hot or acidic environment, then yes,
replication error rates can increase due to the enzyme functioning
under sub-optimal conditions. If you mean a stress such as antibiotic
selection, then it is highly unlikely that mutation rates will
increase, at least on the genome level. Many antibiotics target the
ribosome so there are sometimes translational errors that result but
these are non-heritable.
Recombination in bacteria is generally the result of DNA damage. This
falls into the environmental mutagen category I mentioned earlier.
Exposure to mutagens can be considered a selective pressure as I
said. Recombination intermediates are resolved by DNA polymerase so
again your "mutation rate" is still dependent on DNAP-based errors.
I can tell that you've had some advanced classes in biology. That's
Yeah. Some. LOL.
great. However, bacterial stress responses are what I research for a
living. My PhD work was in this exact subject. Under stressful
conditions, bacteria produce subunits that increase the replication
error rates.
Again, this would depend on the stress. I believe I mentioned heat above
which certainly induces expression sigma32.
Stresses, including cessation of protein synthesis and starvation induce a
heck of a lot more than sigma factors. Of course, all this depends upon the
particular antibiotic.
They also downregulate repair mechanisms and upregulate
DNA uptake mechanisms.
Again, this would depend on the stress. If you want to consider an
environmental mutagen as a stress (which I infer from your previous
posts) then you have to acknowledge that many of these stresses will
*UPREGULATE* recombination. DNA uptake is transmission, which is
certainly critical for propagation of mutations.
It increases the likelihood of obtaining an antibiotic resistance cassette
that evolved naturally in other environments. Without the stress, that
wouldn't occur. Many of the antibiotic resistance genes out there are not
something that evolved overnight but are obtained from bacteria naturally
residing in natural antibiotic-high environments, something you should be
well aware of based upon your statements below.
Recombination is not induced only by DNA
damage, nor is DNA damage result only from mutagens. In fact, many
Hence my use of the word "generally"
antibiotics, particularly the gyrase inhibitors, actually will
increase damage events.
Indeed. And repair events are directed at maintaining genome integrity.
But those repair events are often downregulated in stress conditions.
Since we're throwing around our credentials I'll tell you that my
undergrad thesis (UCSD) was in DNA damage responses in bacteria (I was a
microbiology major), my PhD (UCLA) was in transcription regulation
although I did my thesis work with Jay Gralla (famous for studying
alternate sigma factors). My post-doc was in DNA repair in eukaryotes
and I currently am the director of molecular genetics at a small pharma
where we use HR to create gene conversions in antibiotic BEAs with the
aim of creating *natural* product antimicrobials that evade resistance.
I've had 2 NIH fellowships (pre-doc and post-doc) and I received 5
academic awards while at UCLA include the Cram fellowship. I think that
covers all the bases.
Great. Yet you still repeat thinking from more than a decade ago and write
in absolutes. My pedigree is also stocked full of giants in DNA repair but
that's not the point. The point is that your argument sounds like a response
entirely based on a ten-year old molecular biology textbook without any
acknowledgement of the fact that mutation rates can actually be modulated.
These responses occur not just due to mutagens or suboptimal replication
conditions such as pH or temperature. They are part of the stationary
responses of stressed bacteria and involve both modulating not only the
repair response itself but the actual rate of polymerase errors.
I generally stay out of these types of discussions but merely felt I had to
jump in to correct the misconception that a population already had to have
the trait prior to the selective pressure. That unequivocably is not the
case.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "theBZA" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 12:40:00 PM |
|
|
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:ELSei.2933$vi5.541@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
Great. Yet you still repeat thinking from more than a decade ago and
write in absolutes. My pedigree is also stocked full of giants in DNA
You jumped into this thread after 400 posts. I've been talking to people
who cannot read and understand fifth grade biology primers. Other than
that, I don't know what the ***** you are talking about. I've cited 4
articles from the last 6 months discussing different modes of resistance
developement and transmission. Maybe you can cite that decade old
thinking you seem to think I am repeating? Beyond that, I've agreed with
almost everything you've said except the one statement that was patently
false yet you reply as if I am refuting you.
repair but that's not the point. The point is that your argument
sounds like a response entirely based on a ten-year old molecular
biology textbook without any acknowledgement of the fact that mutation
rates can actually be modulated. These responses occur not just due to
Again, you are 400+ posts down the line and jumping into a discussion I
am having with someone lacking 5th grade understanding.
mutagens or suboptimal replication conditions such as pH or
temperature. They are part of the stationary responses of stressed
bacteria and involve both modulating not only the repair response
itself but the actual rate of polymerase errors.
It seems you do not understand the concept of "examples". This may
explain your "absolutes" comment.
I generally stay out of these types of discussions but merely felt I
had to jump in to correct the misconception that a population already
had to have the trait prior to the selective pressure. That
unequivocably is not the case.
Nor was that ever stated. However, I'll point out that "unequivocally"
is an absolute and it is quite wrong. How else can you explain wild
bacteria that are already resistant to synthetic antibiotics to which
they have never been exposed? Obviously, in this case, they had the
trait prior to the selective pressure. Apparently it can be the case.
Does it have to be the case? No. Can it be? Yes.
--
Crippled but free
I was blind all the time
I was learning to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimV" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 01:14:35 PM |
|
|
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99578BCDA5B3Edewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:ELSei.2933$vi5.541@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
Great. Yet you still repeat thinking from more than a decade ago and
write in absolutes. My pedigree is also stocked full of giants in DNA
You jumped into this thread after 400 posts. I've been talking to people
who cannot read and understand fifth grade biology primers. Other than
that, I don't know what the ***** you are talking about. I've cited 4
articles from the last 6 months discussing different modes of resistance
developement and transmission. Maybe you can cite that decade old
thinking you seem to think I am repeating? Beyond that, I've agreed with
almost everything you've said except the one statement that was patently
false yet you reply as if I am refuting you.
repair but that's not the point. The point is that your argument
sounds like a response entirely based on a ten-year old molecular
biology textbook without any acknowledgement of the fact that mutation
rates can actually be modulated. These responses occur not just due to
Again, you are 400+ posts down the line and jumping into a discussion I
am having with someone lacking 5th grade understanding.
mutagens or suboptimal replication conditions such as pH or
temperature. They are part of the stationary responses of stressed
bacteria and involve both modulating not only the repair response
itself but the actual rate of polymerase errors.
It seems you do not understand the concept of "examples". This may
explain your "absolutes" comment.
I generally stay out of these types of discussions but merely felt I
had to jump in to correct the misconception that a population already
had to have the trait prior to the selective pressure. That
unequivocably is not the case.
Nor was that ever stated. However, I'll point out that "unequivocally"
is an absolute and it is quite wrong. How else can you explain wild
bacteria that are already resistant to synthetic antibiotics to which
they have never been exposed? Obviously, in this case, they had the
trait prior to the selective pressure. Apparently it can be the case.
Does it have to be the case? No. Can it be? Yes.
My response was to Rich's statement "This requires that some number of
individuals already have evolved the
particular trait that grants antibiotic resistance _before exposure_. The
population changes because those individuals are more likely (possibly
uniquely likely) to survive and reproduce."
My point was that this doesn't have to be the case. The stress situation
itself induces mutagenesis, so the actually allele can develop after the
exposure. Also, the stress makes it more likely that the bacteria will be in
a state to acquire a foreign allele that helps the population to escape.
To this, you replied "False. Selective pressures increase the rate of
selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent on
the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to environmental
mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to mutagens *is* a
form of selective pressure but that's stretching it."
I responded that "Replication error rates increase in bacteria under stress.
Stress also makes
it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events and induces
competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the likelihood of
horizontal gene transfer."
To which you replied, "Much depends on what you mean by "stress". If you
mean bacteria growing
in an uncomfortably hot or acidic environment, then yes, replication
error rates can increase due to the enzyme functioning under sub-optimal
conditions. If you mean a stress such as antibiotic selection, then it
is highly unlikely that mutation rates will increase, at least on the
genome level. Many antibiotics target the ribosome so there are
sometimes translational errors that result but these are non-heritable. "
This is my point of 10 year old thinking. Polymerase error rates can
actually increase do to stressors. Even if this wasn't the case, the fact
that repair mechanisms are downregulated in stressful environments makes it
more likely that an error will propagate.
It is unequivocable that bacteria can evolve not only due to pressures
selecting for pre-existing population variants but also that the pressure
itself can induce mutations that create that variant. A selectable
subpopulation does not need to exist prior to the pressure in order for
evolution to occur.
Lastly, your comment "How else can you explain wild bacteria that are
already resistant to synthetic antibiotics to which
they have never been exposed?" is just plain weird.
If you would like to read up on all of this, there are plenty of review
articles. Here's a good one for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15207867&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
That isn't to say that all evolution is driven this way, but merely a
refutation of Rich's original statement, which is far too simplistic.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "theBZA" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 01:29:16 PM |
|
|
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:fkUei.17507$y_7.1236@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99578BCDA5B3Edewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:ELSei.2933$vi5.541@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
Great. Yet you still repeat thinking from more than a decade ago and
write in absolutes. My pedigree is also stocked full of giants in
DNA
You jumped into this thread after 400 posts. I've been talking to
people who cannot read and understand fifth grade biology primers.
Other than that, I don't know what the ***** you are talking about.
I've cited 4 articles from the last 6 months discussing different
modes of resistance developement and transmission. Maybe you can cite
that decade old thinking you seem to think I am repeating? Beyond
that, I've agreed with almost everything you've said except the one
statement that was patently false yet you reply as if I am refuting
you.
repair but that's not the point. The point is that your argument
sounds like a response entirely based on a ten-year old molecular
biology textbook without any acknowledgement of the fact that
mutation rates can actually be modulated. These responses occur not
just due to
Again, you are 400+ posts down the line and jumping into a discussion
I am having with someone lacking 5th grade understanding.
mutagens or suboptimal replication conditions such as pH or
temperature. They are part of the stationary responses of stressed
bacteria and involve both modulating not only the repair response
itself but the actual rate of polymerase errors.
It seems you do not understand the concept of "examples". This may
explain your "absolutes" comment.
I generally stay out of these types of discussions but merely felt I
had to jump in to correct the misconception that a population
already had to have the trait prior to the selective pressure. That
unequivocably is not the case.
Nor was that ever stated. However, I'll point out that
"unequivocally" is an absolute and it is quite wrong. How else can
you explain wild bacteria that are already resistant to synthetic
antibiotics to which they have never been exposed? Obviously, in this
case, they had the trait prior to the selective pressure. Apparently
it can be the case. Does it have to be the case? No. Can it be? Yes.
My response was to Rich's statement "This requires that some number of
individuals already have evolved the
particular trait that grants antibiotic resistance _before exposure_.
The population changes because those individuals are more likely
(possibly uniquely likely) to survive and reproduce."
Ah, ok.
My point was that this doesn't have to be the case. The stress
situation itself induces mutagenesis, so the actually allele can
Is this an absolute?
develop after the exposure. Also, the stress makes it more likely that
the bacteria will be in a state to acquire a foreign allele that helps
the population to escape.
To this, you replied "False. Selective pressures increase the rate of
selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent on
the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to environmental
mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to mutagens *is* a
form of selective pressure but that's stretching it."
I responded that "Replication error rates increase in bacteria under
stress. Stress also makes
it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events and induces
competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the likelihood of
horizontal gene transfer."
To which you replied, "Much depends on what you mean by "stress". If
you mean bacteria growing
in an uncomfortably hot or acidic environment, then yes, replication
error rates can increase due to the enzyme functioning under
sub-optimal conditions. If you mean a stress such as antibiotic
selection, then it is highly unlikely that mutation rates will
increase, at least on the genome level. Many antibiotics target the
ribosome so there are sometimes translational errors that result but
these are non-heritable. "
This is my point of 10 year old thinking. Polymerase error rates can
actually increase do to stressors. Even if this wasn't the case, the
Gee. I said that. WTF?
fact that repair mechanisms are downregulated in stressful
environments makes it more likely that an error will propagate.
Repair mechanisms are not always downregulated in stressful environments.
They are often upregulated. I pointed this out to you before. Also, your
statement here is an absolute.
It is unequivocable that bacteria can evolve not only due to pressures
selecting for pre-existing population variants but also that the
pressure itself can induce mutations that create that variant. A
selectable subpopulation does not need to exist prior to the pressure
in order for evolution to occur.
No. But if you had not waded into the middle of a very long thread, you
might have read the post that said "you have to kill all the bacteria
before they can evolve." I think you will agree that in the case of
antibiotic-resistance, the selectable trait must exist before the
population is wiped out in order for the population to evolve.
Lastly, your comment "How else can you explain wild bacteria that are
already resistant to synthetic antibiotics to which
they have never been exposed?" is just plain weird.
It's weird? Really? Well Tim, you lost me on this one. It was bad enough
when you made general statements and then argued with me when I provided
examples that supported your statements, calling my examples "absolutes".
But this?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5759/374
If you would like to read up on all of this, there are plenty of
review articles. Here's a good one for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&T
ermToSearch=15207867&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pu
bmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
That isn't to say that all evolution is driven this way, but merely a
refutation of Rich's original statement, which is far too simplistic.
It seems that Rich's statement was in response to Ted who claimed you had
to wipeout an entire population before it could evolve. I'll leave it to
you to decide if Rich's statement was unnecessarily simplistic and I'll
just to wonder why you chose his statement to refute and not Teds.
--
Crippled but free
I was blind all the time
I was learning to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimV" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 02:33:46 PM |
|
|
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99579428AFD13dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:fkUei.17507$y_7.1236@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99578BCDA5B3Edewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4...
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote in
news:ELSei.2933$vi5.541@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
Great. Yet you still repeat thinking from more than a decade ago and
write in absolutes. My pedigree is also stocked full of giants in
DNA
You jumped into this thread after 400 posts. I've been talking to
people who cannot read and understand fifth grade biology primers.
Other than that, I don't know what the ***** you are talking about.
I've cited 4 articles from the last 6 months discussing different
modes of resistance developement and transmission. Maybe you can cite
that decade old thinking you seem to think I am repeating? Beyond
that, I've agreed with almost everything you've said except the one
statement that was patently false yet you reply as if I am refuting
you.
repair but that's not the point. The point is that your argument
sounds like a response entirely based on a ten-year old molecular
biology textbook without any acknowledgement of the fact that
mutation rates can actually be modulated. These responses occur not
just due to
Again, you are 400+ posts down the line and jumping into a discussion
I am having with someone lacking 5th grade understanding.
mutagens or suboptimal replication conditions such as pH or
temperature. They are part of the stationary responses of stressed
bacteria and involve both modulating not only the repair response
itself but the actual rate of polymerase errors.
It seems you do not understand the concept of "examples". This may
explain your "absolutes" comment.
I generally stay out of these types of discussions but merely felt I
had to jump in to correct the misconception that a population
already had to have the trait prior to the selective pressure. That
unequivocably is not the case.
Nor was that ever stated. However, I'll point out that
"unequivocally" is an absolute and it is quite wrong. How else can
you explain wild bacteria that are already resistant to synthetic
antibiotics to which they have never been exposed? Obviously, in this
case, they had the trait prior to the selective pressure. Apparently
it can be the case. Does it have to be the case? No. Can it be? Yes.
My response was to Rich's statement "This requires that some number of
individuals already have evolved the
particular trait that grants antibiotic resistance _before exposure_.
The population changes because those individuals are more likely
(possibly uniquely likely) to survive and reproduce."
Ah, ok.
My point was that this doesn't have to be the case. The stress
situation itself induces mutagenesis, so the actually allele can
Is this an absolute?
Is what an absolute? A resistance allele can either preexist or the mutation
can be induced by the stress. It doesn't have to be one way or another.
develop after the exposure. Also, the stress makes it more likely that
the bacteria will be in a state to acquire a foreign allele that helps
the population to escape.
To this, you replied "False. Selective pressures increase the rate of
selection for and
against mutations. Mutation rate is mutation rate. It is dependent on
the error-rate of DNA polymerase and the exposure to environmental
mutagens. I suppose you could claim that exposure to mutagens *is* a
form of selective pressure but that's stretching it."
I responded that "Replication error rates increase in bacteria under
stress. Stress also makes
it more likely that there will be recombinatorial events and induces
competence and prophage lytic events, increasing the likelihood of
horizontal gene transfer."
To which you replied, "Much depends on what you mean by "stress". If
you mean bacteria growing
in an uncomfortably hot or acidic environment, then yes, replication
error rates can increase due to the enzyme functioning under
sub-optimal conditions. If you mean a stress such as antibiotic
selection, then it is highly unlikely that mutation rates will
increase, at least on the genome level. Many antibiotics target the
ribosome so there are sometimes translational errors that result but
these are non-heritable. "
This is my point of 10 year old thinking. Polymerase error rates can
actually increase do to stressors. Even if this wasn't the case, the
Gee. I said that. WTF?
I said that generalized stress can cause higher error rates. You came back
with high temps or environmental mutagens. I am pointing out something you
clearly are unaware of or are purposefully ignoring.
fact that repair mechanisms are downregulated in stressful
environments makes it more likely that an error will propagate.
Repair mechanisms are not always downregulated in stressful environments.
They are often upregulated. I pointed this out to you before. Also, your
statement here is an absolute.
I didn't say that under all stress conditions that all or any of them are up
or down regulated. The fact of the matter is that experiments have shown
that stressors, including antibiotics, will result in the downregulation of
repair mechanisms. Obviously, every condition and every bacteria will
differ, but the fact of the matter is that it does occur.
It is unequivocable that bacteria can evolve not only due to pressures
selecting for pre-existing population variants but also that the
pressure itself can induce mutations that create that variant. A
selectable subpopulation does not need to exist prior to the pressure
in order for evolution to occur.
No. But if you had not waded into the middle of a very long thread, you
might have read the post that said "you have to kill all the bacteria
before they can evolve." I think you will agree that in the case of
antibiotic-resistance, the selectable trait must exist before the
population is wiped out in order for the population to evolve.
Lastly, your comment "How else can you explain wild bacteria that are
already resistant to synthetic antibiotics to which
they have never been exposed?" is just plain weird.
It's weird? Really? Well Tim, you lost me on this one. It was bad enough
when you made general statements and then argued with me when I provided
examples that supported your statements, calling my examples "absolutes".
But this?
I still don't get your point. Natural resistance does not equate to
evolution. The fact that I can drink a gallon of DDT whereas trace amounts
kill mosquitos and effect eagles' eggs has nothing to do with evolution.
However, those naturally resistant alleles most certainly do provide a pool
that could lead to resistance in other bacteria.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5759/374
If you would like to read up on all of this, there are plenty of
review articles. Here's a good one for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&T
ermToSearch=15207867&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pu
bmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
That isn't to say that all evolution is driven this way, but merely a
refutation of Rich's original statement, which is far too simplistic.
It seems that Rich's statement was in response to Ted who claimed you had
to wipeout an entire population before it could evolve. I'll leave it to
you to decide if Rich's statement was unnecessarily simplistic and I'll
just to wonder why you chose his statement to refute and not Teds.
I went back to the few posts above Rich's and can find no such assertion by
Ted. Please feel free to find that for me and I'll stand corrected. He does
state that the organism would not have developed resistance had you not
begun killing it with antibiotics. This statement is way too absolute. In
reality, antibiotics both induce novel mutations as well as providing
selection that increases the probability of spreading resistance alleles
(natural or evolved alleles).
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward M. Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution |
22 Jun 2007 04:48:11 PM |
|
|
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> wrote
It seems that Rich's statement was in response to Ted who claimed you had
to wipeout an entire population before it could evolve. I'll leave it to
you to decide if Rich's statement was unnecessarily simplistic and I'll
just to wonder why you chose his statement to refute and not Teds.
I went back to the few posts above Rich's and can find no such assertion by
Ted. Please feel free to find that for me and I'll stand corrected. He does
state that the organism would not have developed resistance had you not
begun killing it with antibiotics. This statement is way too absolute.
It was just a simple example to disprove his original moronic assertion:
"I have said over and over that the rate of population growth is a measure
of the rate of evolution."
Rather than defend his dumbass assertion, he goes down all these side topics.
The real problem is that he confused the rate of population growth with the
rate at which individuals in a population reproduce. I can see him googling
right now for some tidbit of information he can use to prove his brane is
bigger than yours by nitpicking a few of the points you made.
IIRC, my original retort was that his assertion implies humans ought to be
evolving faster now than we were several hundred years ago, which somehow
devolved into this. It didn't occur to me that he didn't even understand my
retort with regards to the rate of population growth. He may have taught
himself a good bit of genetics by now, but either math or logic isn't his
forte.
--Tedward
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
